Category Archives: Church admin.

Well, maybe I do like Google Docs after all…

In spite of my initial skepticism, I’ve decided Google Docs can be very useful to a small church like ours.

This week, I’m doing lots of planning for the coming church year. And I decided to put our worship calendar on a Google Docs spreadsheet. I made this spreadsheet public, and made sure that all changes to the document are immediately published. Then I made our music director a “collaborator.” He went to the spreadsheet and entered the Sundays he will be off. Once we hire a new Director of Religious Education, I’ll make him/her a collaborator as well. Communication and collaboration among staff members is already easier.

Now that this our worship schedule is online, our church secretary will be no longer have to ask me each month for a paper copy of the most recent version of the schedule. The same is true for our worship associates (i.e., laypeople who do readings, etc., during the worship service) and other lay leaders. Everybody is now working from the same document, and all changes are immediately published.

Pretty cool, huh? (If you want to see what our worship schedule looks like, go here.)

Big donors at church

Dad and I were just talking. Non-profit organizations that rely heavily on individual donations (as opposed to non-profits that rely on grants) typically recognize big donors in some way, e.g., in the annual report there will be listings of donors under categories such as “Platinum Givers,” “President’s Circle,” etc. Indeed, fundraisers tell us that big donors really like to be recognized in this way, and this should be one of the techniques you should use to cultivate your big donors.

Since Unitarian Universalist churches are heavily dependent on individual donations, it would make sense to publish such lists in a congregation’s annual report: “Channing Circle, giving $20,000+” and “Parker Patrons, giving $10,000-20,000,” etc. However, as an essentially egalitarian religion, we don’t want to leave out people with modest who means who happen to give a substantial percentage of their income, so Dad and I thought we’d include that in the categories of giving, e.g., “Channing Circle, those who give $20,000+ or 10%+ of gross annual income,” etc.

Would you implement such a system to reward big donors and stimulate increased giving in your congregation? Discuss.

Question for readers

I wound up having an interesting conversation at coffee hour today with several parents of Sunday school children. We were standing out in the church garden, watching children run around like wild things. As such things go, we have a pretty good garden for children to play in: there are some safe trees to climb (with low branches overhanging soft grass), and a small grassy lawn to run around on. But….

But it’s a small garden, a fairly formal garden, and we don’t really have room for active games. I mentioned that I’ve been thinking that we could install a couple of tetherball posts — tetherball is good because is doesn’t take much room, and you can take the whole thing inside when you’re done (even though we have a fence around our garden, it is a city garden, and things do get stolen). One of the parents suggested one of those moveable basketball hoops — there’s not enough room for a real game of basketball, but you could play shooting games like “Horse.” And what about Frisbee golf? — we don’t have enough room for a real Frisbee golf course, but we do have enough room for a child-sized course (if you’re willing to lose the occasional Frisbee over the fence).

I would be very curious to know if any of my readers might have suggestions based on their own experience in churches that have very little space. How have you integrated sports and/or active games into your church grounds?

Neither moral nor managerial

Mr. Crankypants here, and as usual he has something on his mind, which is this: Why is it that people in the United States assume that everything a minister says has to do with morality? — actually, morality and guilt. As if ministers are predominantly supreme moral and ethical arbiters. Speaking as someone whose alter ego happens to be a minister, Mr. Crankypants is uniquely placed to assure you that, on average, ministers are not that much better at moral and ethical distinctions than are non-ministers. It is true that ones would like a minister who is not going to molest one’s children nor rob one blind, but having an honest minister does not mean one should feel guilty every time one sees one’s minister.

Nor, despite what the acolytes of John Carver will try to tell you, are ministers essentially supermanagers and/or superadministrators. Trust Mr. Crankypants, most ministers have little formal training in management and administration, and even less skill. The effort to equate ministers with Chief Executive Officers is a lost cause, unless your congregation plans to pay your minister a salary equivalent to a CEO salary (we’re talking six figures for a chump CEO, and seven figures for a competent CEO for a nonprofit organization, just so you have no illusions about this). It is true that there are a few ministers with MBAs, but if your minister gave up a well-compensated position in the business world, you would be wise to be a little bit suspicious about why he or she decided to drop that seven-figure salary in favor of the pittance your congregation pays.

No,– in Mr. Crankypants’s experience, it is unwise to expect a minister to be either particularly moral or ethical (thus no need to feel guilty when you see your minister), nor to expect your minister to be particularly adept as a manager. At best, we can hope for minister who approximates to a holy person. But we’ll probably have to settle for someone who actually does maintain a daily spiritual practice, and who might be occasionally inspired (a word which literally means, O best beloved, infused with spirit, or Spirit). Ha! –too bad my stupid alter ego, Dan, is none of the above; except that he does maintain a daily spiritual practice.

Now that that is settled, Mr. Crankypants will head off to bed.

Towards a manifesto for emergent Unitarian Universalism

Mr. Crankypants’s post yesterday prompts me to try to put together a creative, positive statement of what emergent Unitarian Universalism might look like. Below you’ll find some brainstorming on the topic. Add your own ideas in the comments.

The context — Emergent Unitarian Universalism recognizes that the culture around us is changing rapidly. We know that our core theological message is a saving message for these postmodern times, and we have no interest in adapting our theological truth to fit these times. But everything else we do is up for grabs — worship styles, organizational structures, hymnody, management, openness to newcomers, everything — as long as it doesn’t compromise our core theological message.

The core theological message — Our core theological message is not a single statement, but a web of ideas. Historically, our core message grows from liberal theology of the Christian tradition. The insights of feminist, African American, and Two Thirds World liberation theologies have become central to us. Based on liberation theologies and other theologies of freedom, we value our differences of age, gender, race, national origin, class, sexual orientation, physical ability, and theology. We are bound together, not by a creed, but by covenants: We come together in the Spirit of Love to seek truth and goodness, to find spiritual transformation in our lives, to care for one another, and to promote practical goodness in the world. We know that all human beings (indeed, all sentient beings) share the same ultimate destiny, and we know that we have the free will to effect change in our lives and in the world.

We share our core theological message with Unitarians and Universalists and other religious liberals around the world, and we recognize (and value) the global diversity of our message.

Theses for change

Worship services need not take place only on Sunday morning. Ministers, other staff, and lay leaders who resist holding worship services at other times may be viewed as reactionary holdouts from the 1950s.

The emergent generations value mystery and tradition, so traditional church buildings and candlelight and ritual are assets.

The emergent generations often have never been a part of a church or religious institution before, so church leaders must assume a complete absence of knowledge about religion and religious practice at all times.

The surrounding culture is faceless and anonymous, and people are crying out for a sense of community. Thus our churches must stop being Continue reading →

Oh my goodness, is this another rant…

For once, Mr. Crankypants is somewhat proud of his stupid alter ego, Dan. Back on December 6, Dan wrote about the new Jewish independent minyanim as reported in a New York Times article (link). Dan commented on how some of us have noted the similarities between these minyanim and some of what was going on in the Unitarian Universalist young adult movement a dozen years ago, back when Dan was still a young adult (Mr. Crankypants refuses to admit that he will ever be anything but a young adult).

Turns out that back on November 26, the Jewish blog Synablog noted the same New York Times article, and drew the connection between the minyanim and the evangelical Christian emergent church movement (link). Synablog’s post is titled “Emergent — Yes It’s Happening Among Both Christians and Jews.”

It’s happening among the Jews and the evangelical Christians, but of course not among Unitarian Universalists — who are theologically liberal but methodologically rigid — who seem to be ignoring the fact that the world is changing rapidly around us;– rapid change which requires that Unitarian Universalist worship services and the very structure of all religious communities must change as well.

The radically inclusive theological stance of Unitarian Universalism has kept us growing, ever so slightly, in this postmodern world;– but we continue to aim our advertising and our worship services squarely at the people who are already here. We do religion as if it were still the 1950’s, when civic religion ruled, when everyone got the basics of religion from the surrounding culture, when a town could vote the town’s only Jew as “most Christian citizen,” when you didn’t have to market your church because the surrounding culture acted like a dumptruck that backed up to your front door each week and dumped off tons of potential church members (with no effort on your part). Today, Unitarian Universalists live in a 1950’s time warp: Let’s just forget about the postmodern generations, they don’t really belong here anyway (and besides, who wants all those young adults in our churches?).

Grrr.

Oh my. Has Mr. Crankypants been ranting again about the same old topics? Given how methodologically rigid Unitarian Universalists are, ranting would seem to be a waste of Mr. C.’s time, except that it is sooo satisfying. There’s something about throwing a good hissy-fit that just makes you feel good all over….

Can you tell me?…

The Unitarian Universalist Association recently sent out information about Leading Congregations into a Multiracial, Multicultural Future, a conference that’s taking place in February, 2008. I’m very interested in the topic — here at First Unitarian in New Bedford, we’re slowly heading towards becoming a multiracial, multicultural congregation — but I want to be really sure the conference is worth the thousand dollars per person it will cost if we send people from New Bedford.

So I’d love to know if any of you attended this conference last year. If you attended last year, are you going again this year? and did last year’s conference help you to effect change within your congregation? Tell us about your experiences in the comments….

Down by law

Mr. Crankypants’ stupid alter ego, Dan, is off at some ministers’ retreat. Dan just called here to make sure no one was illicitly logging on to his blog to write something while he was gone, and he happened to mention that the focus of the ministers’ retreat is a workshop by some guy named Scott Alexander called “Exercising Health in the Practice of Ministry.” Dan was all excited by what this Scott fellow had to say….

Dan: “I’m all excited by what Scott had to say!”

Mr. Crankypants, muttering under his breath: “You are easily excited.”

Dan: “What? What did you say?”

Mr. C: “What are you excited about?”

Dan: “Oh, Scott is telling us what everyone knows, but won’t say — that most ministers chronically work far too many hours, that chronically overworking just makes them less effective as ministers, less healthy and less able to function effectively as religious leaders.”

Fine, Dan. But what Mr. Crankypants wants to know is who is saying the same thing for the Directors of Religious Education? Many congregations routinely expect Directors of Religious Education to work far longer than the hours they get paid for. Many congregations (especially small congregations) expect Directors of Religious Education to work miracles — to accomplish fifty hours worth of work while getting paid for only seventeen with no benefits and most often no vacation. No wonder the average tenure for a Director of Religious Education is only about two and a half years — Directors of Religious Education are not stupid people, and quickly pick up on the fact that they are being exploited, so they quit.

OK, Mr. Crankypants has something to say to you Directors of Religious Education out there, so listen up. The Board of Trustees of your church is not going to change. The Board of Trustees of your church is never going to say to you, Hey you work too many hours. They are never going to say to you, Hey since you’re charged with family ministry in this church we want you to model how to be a good family member by not working any extra hours. (These lines stolen directly from what Dan reported of Scott Alexander’s workshop.) But — everyone in your church is going to notice when you work more hours than you’re supposed to, and they’re going to think, Man I can’t live up to her/his standards so I’m just not going to teach Sunday school so I’ll never measure up. There’s only one way you can get out of this double bind….

Go tell the Board of Trustees at your church that you, the Director of Religious Education, need to set a good example for all religious families, by spending lots of time with your family, and not overworking at church. Tell ’em that Mr. Crankypants said so — so they just better listen up!

Down by law. Mr. C. has got your back, yo.

The coming revolution

I’ve been rereading Carl George’s book The Coming Church Revolution: Empowering Leaders for the Future. Carl George is a church consultant, and he is the most prominent advocate of so-called “Meta-Church,” a church organized primarily around small groups. The Coming Church Revolution is one of the books that inspired the “Small Group Ministry” movement within Unitarian Universalism.

I decided to re-read George’s book because I noticed that current Unitarian Universalist approaches to growth through the formation of small “cell groups” are simply not working. For example, the most recent issue of Interconnections, the newsletter for lay leaders published by the Unitarian Universalist Association, makes the following statement: “First Unitarian Society in Newton, MA (385 members), may have one of the best Small Group Ministry (SGM) programs around. The program began in 2001 with ninety people in nine groups. Today there are seventy-two members in eight groups.” [Link] In other words, the best small group ministry program within Unitarian Universalism is losing members, not gaining members for the congregation.

Opening George’s book at random, I happened to find myself in the middle of the chapter on worship. At this point, those accustomed to Unitarian Universalist Small Group Ministry programs are probably asking themselves what does SGM have to do with worship? Unitarian Universalists are accustomed to think of SGM as another church program, but George makes it clear that Meta-Church is not another program you add to your congregation, it is instead a different organizational model, a different way of organizing and empowering leaders in your congregation.

In the context of his overarching organizational model, George sees worship as an artistic celebration that can involve many lay people in the congregation. The Meta-Church model of organization is scaleable, that is, it can be scaled up from small churches like ours here in New Bedford, to very large (over ten thousand members) churches. Therefore, George believes that worship should involve more than just the preacher — indeed, while he respects preaching and believes it is central to worship, he also believes that preaching is not always necessary for successful worship: “I’m not preaching against preaching. I’m not even questioning the legitimacy of long sermons…. Rather, I’m affirming that there are times when… God’s message is communicated as effectively — or perhaps more effectively — by elements of the service other than preaching.” [p. 145] At the same time, Gerore asserts that his Meta-Church organizational model is “transparent to worship style” — Meta-Church will work with any worship style.

But the Meta-Church organizational model insists on empowering lots of lay people to participate in worship services, through developing the skills of lay people, bringing those artistic skills to worship services, and also out into the community. So there are Guilds in which artistic skills are cultivated and developed — guilds might include group music lessons (e.g., some choir rehearsals), a conservatory for vocal music, an acting academy, etc. Then as people develop skill and talent, they are organized into troupes — troupes might include an a capella choir, a handbell choir, a liturgical dance troupe, a sound team or video production team, etc. These troupes perform at worship services, and also out in the community (e.g., a Christmas concert at a local mall).

One of George’s most interesting bits of advice relating to empowering lay leaders seems counter-intuitive at first. When hiring staff, he does not necessarily recommend hiring staff people who are good performers themselves. Rather, he urges churches to hire producers: “Don’t hire any more music directors; you can usually get volunteer artists to do that for free. Hire worship-service and pageant producers and make sure they have an impressario flair about them; that is, do they know how to create a solid, flowing sense of worship that is put together and produced by various worship groups?” I don’t mean to anger the Unitarian Universalist Musicians Network (UUMN), but I think George is right, while the UUMN is heading in the wrong direction — we don’t need more paid musicians, nor do we need more paid music directors, but we do need producers who can facilitate and empower lay people to succeed in worship.

Of course, by now you’ve figured out some obvious things. Lay worship leaders are supported and trained by paid staff, and lay worship leaders have an outward-directed ministry that makes them feel great. Troupes of lay worship leaders can function as support groups, and troupes can draw new people into a congregation. In fact, these troupes probably do a better job of supporting individuals and promoting growth, than do the small groups of typical SGM programs. It’s an old truism that if you want to grow your church, one sure bet is to have a great choir — because great choirs make people want to come to church, great choirs attract newcomers who want to sing in the choir, and the members of great choirs provide excellent support to one another.

So there you have my thoughts after re-reading just one chapter of The Coming Church Revolution. I’d be curious to know what you think about this….